Sensational-Adelaide.com

realstretts wrote:I find it hilarious that the minority were lobbying to save a few trees. No doubt they all drive their cars everywhere or have caught a plane recently and are doing just as much damage to the environment. Cognitive dissonance writ large.

The irony is that they would have seen a net gain in parklands.

And east end traders should worry about actually running their businesses competitively instead of how many car parks there are on surrounding streets.
There's at least four damn multi-storey car parks in or just off Rundle Street.

Waewick wrote:So I know alot people who were agaisnt it, none who read the advertiser. they were made aware by the groups exceptionally good and misleading social media campaign.

Exactly my point about needing to counter these lunatics.
It might be more difficult for us though as we aren't retired pensioners with nothing better to do.

rev wrote:

Waewick wrote:So I know alot people who were agaisnt it, none who read the advertiser. they were made aware by the groups exceptionally good and misleading social media campaign.

Exactly my point about needing to counter these lunatics.
It might be more difficult for us though as we aren't retired pensioners with nothing better to do.

Its an interesting one really. Whilst I thing the $180M could be better spent so was pretty amvilious to the whole thing I was quite suprised at the push back - Overall, it was just poorly handled by the Government, they shouldn't have allowed the focus to be on the cutting down of plnated trees.

but as I said, its a shit proposal and it wouldn't suprise me anyone outside Wetherill and the planning guy are doing nothing on it becuase they think so too.

Just a thought. Could this have been the proposal all along?
The initial proposal was thrown out there so all the baby boomersscum
could jump up and down. Now they will look even more idiotic if they whinge.

rev wrote:And east end traders should worry about actually running their businesses competitively instead of how many car parks there are on surrounding streets.
There's at least four damn multi-storey car parks in or just off Rundle Street.

It's actually seven. Seven!

UPark Rundle, UPark Frome St, Wilson Centrepoint, Wilson Union St, Wilson Bent St, Wilson Frome St & Wilson North Tce. Then of course there's also the nearby carparks around the mall. I get that the Wilson carparks can be pretty pricey, but the UParks are very reasonable, particularly the Rundle one.

Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.

This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?

claybro wrote:

Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.

This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?

Am I the only one who wonders why we're even debating this...this state govt has a terrible track record on (non carfocused) transport infrastructure building..I won't believe this is going to get built until I see shovels in the ground.

You're statement needs qualified evidence to back it up. I certainly
believe their track record would be miles in front of
Mr. Wok in a box , under whom NOTHING would get done.
For the record , as an O-Bahn user, I look fwd to opening
day.

citywatcher wrote:You're statement needs qualified evidence to back it up. I certainly
believe their track record would be miles in front of
Mr. Wok in a box , under whom NOTHING would get done.
For the record , as an O-Bahn user, I look fwd to opening
day.

I'm at para hills. Right at the point where I choose the faster method of travel to the city when I want to go into the city. Bus via o-bahn(enters at paradise) or park n ride at Mawson Lakes train station. The Gawler line not being electrified really annoys me.i work at DSTO so every day I pass the pylons that were supposed to hang the catenary for the Gawler line. Arfur. Arfur job:( if this tunnel gets built I'll be pleasantly surprised and will use the o-Bahn a lot more.

Nathan wrote:

rev wrote:And east end traders should worry about actually running their businesses competitively instead of how many car parks there are on surrounding streets.
There's at least four damn multi-storey car parks in or just off Rundle Street.

It's actually seven. Seven!

UPark Rundle, UPark Frome St, Wilson Centrepoint, Wilson Union St, Wilson Bent St, Wilson Frome St & Wilson North Tce. Then of course there's also the nearby carparks around the mall. I get that the Wilson carparks can be pretty pricey, but the UParks are very reasonable, particularly the Rundle one.

And wouldn't you believe it, generally the cheapest and safest place to park during the day is in one of the multi-story car-parks.

Kasey771 wrote:

claybro wrote:

Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.

This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?

Am I the only one who wonders why we're even debating this...this state govt has a terrible track record on (non carfocused) transport infrastructure building..I won't believe this is going to get built until I see shovels in the ground.

Ahhh, because guided bus-ways ensure that private cars don't use and clog up the system.

Personally, I feel a Modbury freeway would make more sense along the O'Bahn channel with designated bus-lanes on the side.

claybro wrote:

Torrens_5022 wrote:This is clearly a terrible idea and making the tunnel obahn buses only is stupid.

This is part I definately dont get....why make the tunnel a guided busway thereby prventing use by "normal" busses and any possible future tram use. Busways and tunnels in Brisbane and the one under condtruction in Perth use a standard road surface (they obviously dont have O Bahns) but still do the same job of getting busses into the BBD away from main roads.
Otherwise, I have no problem with the proposal, and why cant they just close Rundle road anyway?

An O-bahn tunnel would be narrower (hence cheaper to construct) and would probably be faster. There are no normal bus routes going from Grenfell Street to Hackney Road, there's unlikely to be any in the future, and hypothetically if one were to be introduced, putting O-bahn buses on it wouldn't be too difficult.

There are other bus routes (such as the Prospect Road one) that should be a higher priority for conversion to tramways than those on The Parade. And when trams do finally come to The Parade, there's no good reason why they'd have to go to Grenfell Street.

I fully support this version of the plan.

We want trams going to people the parade is already medium density and a tram would be used immediately rather than a subsidy to grow Density which it would be to Prospect.

Waewick wrote:We want trams going to people the parade is already medium density and a tram would be used immediately rather than a subsidy to grow Density which it would be to Prospect.

Only around Norwood is The Parade significantly higher density. And there are parallel bus routes on each side about 500m away from The Parade, whereas they're about 800m from Prospect Road.

The existing bus service on Prospect Road is sufficiently well used to show the demand is there. And if trams are ever going to go to Mawson Lakes, Prospect Road is the best route for it.

Aidan wrote:

Waewick wrote:We want trams going to people the parade is already medium density and a tram would be used immediately rather than a subsidy to grow Density which it would be to Prospect.

Only around Norwood is The Parade significantly higher density. And there are parallel bus routes on each side about 500m away from The Parade, whereas they're about 800m from Prospect Road.

The existing bus service on Prospect Road is sufficiently well used to show the demand is there. And if trams are ever going to go to Mawson Lakes, Prospect Road is the best route for it.

I think we are coming at the problwem from different perspectives.

sure, the parade has higher density which is the point, higer density is accepted (and will continue) if you put a tram down to the parade and stopped the buses it would be utilised 7 days a week as the parade is in itself a destination, rather than simply putting it somewhere for something else in the future.

I might add, Magill Rd and Kensignton are around 700 metres from the Parade , so that difference is also fairly minimal. we are talking 100 metres difference to a bus noting its about 1km from a train, where as the parade is miles from any rail link.

If you really wanted to extend, you could go down the parade to Magill Uni, you pass nearly 6 schools and a Uni, so even more reason to go down the parade and get those users onto the network to provide critical mass for future extension